Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Four Year Plan


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀 Locomotive207 - talk  🌀  01:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The Four Year Plan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NFILM, created by the production company's (indeffed) account. UPE Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 10:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 10:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Don't these reviews in The Guardian, Indy and The Times establish GNG? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think the nomination is more focused on the nature of the article's creation than meeting notability guidelines. However, I think enough edits have since been made by independent editors that that wouldn't be justification to delete (on its own) for me.  The COI tag should remain, unless someone reviews the neutrality and puts a Connected contributor tag on the Talk page. The reviews posted by  satisfy WP:NFO#1. -2pou (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 09:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Queens Park Rangers F.C., don't think we need a separate article. GiantSnowman 09:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to QPR per GiantSnowman. I consider this a rather unique AfD. With the reviews, it passes GNG, but barely. However, it's also clearly promotional, everything we can say about it comes from one of three reviews, and there's another place where it can be covered. Therefore I think the proper course of action here is to do a selective merge into the QPR article or the history of QPR article. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I lean towards keep, all football documentary films are promotional, why single this one out?? There is a lot of room to improve the article, there are some sources on that could be added from the google search I saw. I also feel this scraps by and just passes GNG. Govvy (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This is just notable enough in my opinion. It won a semi-notable award and has coverage and reviews from The Guardian and the Independent alongside other smaller (yet reliable) sources. I do acknowledge that this was created to be promotional however it still passes. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As it passes GNG, and the documentary by virtue of its topic is always going to be mildly promotional, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it if it passes GNG. Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.